3 ms·

There is one problem. If the change in question is related to just having an alternate DNS stucture, that's perfectly fine. Because it doesn't mean users are fo

There is one problem. If the change in question is related to just having an alternate DNS stucture, that's perfectly fine. Because it doesn't mean users are forced to use it: at any moment, I can force my machine to use any DNS server I choose and it will respect that. However, if they actually implement URL filtering, it might mean something completely different: that IP addresses of SciHub/Libgen will be blocked by the ISPs in the whole of EU no matter DNS server I use. Not all countries would individually agree to that.

azernik 5y ago
I don't know where you're getting that IP-level filtering is the only way to "actually implementing URL filtering" - if they're talking about URL filtering as a feature of a new DNS infrastructure, then the most likely assumption is that they're talking about DNS-level filtering.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  My assumption is based on the fact that DNS-based filtering ("of URLs leading to illegal content") simply doesn't work and is trivial to circumvent both by the client and the server, so the countries that block Libgen&co. do so at the ISP level using IP filtering.
  - azernik 5y ago
    It is trivial to circumvent. And countries and ISPs still do it all the time, because most consumers are not capable of even the trivial step of changing DNS servers. e.g. in the UK blocking is usually just implemented by DNS filter.
vidarh 5y ago
Unless they go full on Great Firewall and block VPNs all they'd achieve is to make VPNs go even more mainstream (and while many adults may still not be used to VPNs, they can ask their kids - most of my sons friends all have VPNs set up for everything from evading region blocks for content to ban evasion from game servers)
denton-scratch 5y ago
The way I read it, the proposal is that ISPs and other providers of recursive resolvers MAY implement "value-added" filtering services. I didn't see anything about some central filtering agency that had the power to force some filter-package into every recursive resolver in the EU.

azernik 5y ago

I don't know where you're getting that IP-level filtering is the only way to "actually implementing URL filtering" - if they're talking about URL filtering as a feature of a new DNS infrastructure, then the most likely assumption is that they're talking about DNS-level filtering.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
My assumption is based on the fact that DNS-based filtering ("of URLs leading to illegal content") simply doesn't work and is trivial to circumvent both by the client and the server, so the countries that block Libgen&co. do so at the ISP level using IP filtering.
- azernik 5y ago
  It is trivial to circumvent. And countries and ISPs still do it all the time, because most consumers are not capable of even the trivial step of changing DNS servers. e.g. in the UK blocking is usually just implemented by DNS filter.

vidarh 5y ago

Unless they go full on Great Firewall and block VPNs all they'd achieve is to make VPNs go even more mainstream (and while many adults may still not be used to VPNs, they can ask their kids - most of my sons friends all have VPNs set up for everything from evading region blocks for content to ban evasion from game servers)

denton-scratch 5y ago

The way I read it, the proposal is that ISPs and other providers of recursive resolvers MAY implement "value-added" filtering services. I didn't see anything about some central filtering agency that had the power to force some filter-package into every recursive resolver in the EU.